Posted on 12/10/2014 6:32:20 AM PST by marshmallow
"Christian unity" is one of those terms that stir up a whole spectrum of—sometimes emotional—opinions.
On the one hand, we know that Jesus prayed to the Father concerning future believers "that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you" (John 17:21a, NIV).
On the other hand, charismatics know it is almost pointless to discuss the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12, 14) with Baptists or most anyone else from a mainline denomination. And Protestants of just about any stripe get riled up when they hear Catholics talking about papal infallibility or their adoration of the Virgin Mary.
It's on this latter point that Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, and successful author, has waded into a hornet's nest of controversy by telling a Catholic News Service interviewer that Protestants and Catholics "have far more in common than what divides us" and that Catholics do not "worship Mary like she's another god."
Regarding Warren's view that Catholics do not worship Mary, Matt Slick, writing on the website of the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, goes into great detail with material from Roman Catholic sources that say Mary is "the all holy one," is to be prayed to, worshipped, that she "brings us the gifts of eternal life" and she "made atonement for the sins of man."
If that's not putting her in the place of Christ as a god-like figure to be worshipped, then what is it?
"We believe in Trinity, the Bible, the resurrection, and that salvation is through Jesus Christ. These are the big issues," Warren says. "But the most important thing is if you love Jesus, we're on the same team."
To Warren's point about being on the same team, Slick.....
(Excerpt) Read more at charismanews.com ...
Oops, that’s from Acts 15, the Council at Jerusalem.
Why have you inserted a word and made it out to be mine ? Why would you do such a thing ?
No, it's wishful thinking on the part of Catholics who apparently cannot stand not having control over everyone.
And knowing that He founded the Catholic church (there was none other for 1,600 years) I think that it is safe to assume that He wanted us to seek Him and salvation and the Eucharist through the church THAT HE FOUNDED!!! reasonable assumption I'd say.
Only to the deceived.
We don't seek salvation by eating Jesus. Besides, Catholics claim that salvation is by being baptized. So then why are they telling us that people have to eat Jesus to be saved? Wasn't the *indelible mark* in indelible enough? Didn't it really take?
So then, baptism doesn't really save after all, then does it?
This has been addressed.
I asked a question.
Questions do not come under the heading “true” or “untrue”
But yes it is true, I asked a question.
Seemed logical as South Park just seems to scream from some of your posts.
Sure they do.
See the above list.
Just like Kennedy did when he was facing death. Make a show of *repenting* and get the blessing of a Catholic funeral.
Why don't you believe Jesus words?
Why don't you believe Jesus words?
Proved untrue many times here, even by quotes from Catholic authorities.
When a statement is started with a patently false claim, the rest is not worthy of comment.
Christians church (the body of believers) is built on Jesus.
Follow men, or follow Jesus.
Both you and I have made that choice. Me Jesus. You, men it would seem.
Choosing to be subject to a man (your pope as commanded) instead of Jesus is a bad choice.
There were not any Catholics until about the 4th century, when the sect was started.
There were just Christians.
And then after Catholicism was cememted in, then came the Dark Ages. Coincidence? There is no word for coincidence in the Hebrew language.
Hay, you gots a lot of catching up to do.
LOL at convoluted, you like my use of it huh?
“Catholic ascriptions to Mary”
Read them carefully and you’ll see not a single one of them says “Mary is God” or “we should worship Mary as a god”. Not one of them.
In fact, if you actually pay attention to what you post, what do you see?
“We must never adore her; that is for God alone.”
In the Prayer of Pope Pius XII, Composed for the Marian Year, 1954 you cut out (because you were just cutting and pasting this without actually researching these, right?) “of sublime gifts with which God has filled you, above every other mere creature” which clearly shows GOD gave something to Mary she lacked on her own and that she is creature above other creatures BUT STILL A CREATURE. She clearly is not God. Gee, I wonder why that part was not included in the cut and paste?
Next one: “The power thus put into her (Mary’s) hands is all but unlimited.” PUT INTO HER HANDS. That means she is not God.
Next one: “they mean that the authority which God was pleased to give her is so great that she seems to have the same power as God.” If God gave her authority, then that means she naturally didn’t have it. That means she is not God.
Next one: The very first line of the next one WHICH, OF COURSE, IS NOT QUOTED BY YOU says, “The saints are insistent on the necessity for distinguishing between the Three Divine Persons and for rendering to each one of them an appropriate attention.” Three Divine Persons. Mary is not one of them.
Next one: This one is a ellipse filled quote from Montfort from a document (see the link) that is 79 PAGES LONG! I read it 20 years ago and I know it never once says Mary is God. In paragraph 5 it says, “5. Mary is the supreme masterpiece of Almighty God...” If Mary is a masterpiece, she is a mere creature, a created thing. Clearly Montfort, that great and tireless saint, knew Mary was not God.
Next one: I’ve never read Eadmer or Young’s book, but the quote listed is only talking about Mary as the New Eve (the undoer of knots as Irenaeus put it) and as an intercessor for men before the Christ the Judge. It says nothing about Mary being God. Looks like an interesting book. Thanks for misusing it or else I might not have ever known about it. I’ll have to add it to my reading list.
And the rest of the quotes go exactly the same way. They don’t say ANYTHING ABOUT MARY BEING GOD OR THAT SHE IS WORSHIPED AS GOD OR THAT SHE SHOULD BE WORSHIPED AS GOD.
Not. One. Word.
One more caught my eye as I scrolled down the page, “from her union with Christ” in Ad Caeli Reginam. If Mary has what she has from her union with Christ, then she isn’t God.
So, not a single one of the quotes you cut and pasted from someone’s compiled list actually say Mary is God, or that Mary is to be worshiped as God. None of them. Not even one.
Oh my, so all Christians are Catholics?
LOL my goodness what a stretch.
Good way to increase your numbers.
So, I guess being as your statement isn't true and Christians baptized outside the Catholic church are actually NOT Catholics, then the number of Catholics goes down quite a bit.
1.2 billion claimed.
Plus or minus 672 million actual Christians out side the Catholic church leaves about plus or minus 5 or 600,000 Catholics.
Thanks for showing how to count believers terycarl!
“The Catholic Church says they have incorporated paganism. Deal with it.”
Nope. Some Catholics have said some implements and customs used by ancient pagans are used by Christians. Those are two very different things.
Even your own quotes show this to be the case:
““We need not shrink from admitting that candles, like incense and lustral water, were commonly employed in pagan worship and the rites paid to the dead. But the Church from a very early period took them into her service”
That means they were things “employed”, not paganism itself.
““When we give or receive Christmas gifts; or hang green wreaths in our homes and churches, how many of us know that we are probably observing pagan customs”
Pagan customs are not paganism itself.
You were wrong.
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.Christ did not come to condemn anyone, because God the Father has already condemned the entire world. Christ came to save those who would believe in Him.6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
John 8:
24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.This evidences that there will be those who do NOT believe, therefore, Christ could NOT HAVE DIED for the whole world without individuals 'doing something,' i.e., believing in Him.
John 9:
35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Believing in Christ and being born again are VERBS. It is what an individual MUST DO to enter the kingdom of God. Christ approached individuals, and compelled them to answer Him individually, 'do you believe in Me?" His salvation is not a blanket, thrown upon all people. Then there would be no need for any person to have a FREE WILL.
Just believing that Christ is God is not good enough to enter the kingdom of God, as Satan and the demons KNOW that Christ is God.
The only requirement for salvation, the only "work" is admitting you are a sinner, require a savior, accept Christ as your redeemer who died on the cross, for you, personally. If there were no one else who sinned, He still would have come to the earth in the form of a Man and died for you, personally.
There is NO work and NO religious SECT or denomination into which someone is REQUIRED to enter to receive eternal life. Christ said One MUST believe in Him and be born again.
>>Do you think it's OK to translate the NT into other languages, other than the original Greek?<< - I take it you're saying "Yes."
>>Chapters and verses<< --- a "Yes, But..."
>>Marriages<< "Immaterial to the subject as those are not part of the worship of God. Having studied the ancient Jewish wedding practices I find that today's wedding practices have their roots in them."
OK, good.
Now I'm telling you these are all cultural accommodations which relate to, but do not necessarily equate to, the worship of God.
Let's take what's really the key example, #2, translation.
The Bible says (Exodus 3:13-15),
God said to Moses, “I am who I am. (Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, in Hebrew.) This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.'" God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, the name you shall call me from generation to generation".
That's as clear as i could possibly be.
Yet usually when the Bible is translated, the very word(s) for "God" are translated into whatever word that culture uses, or used, for their Supreme Deity. So you'll see "Shàngdì" in Chinese Bibles, French "Dieu", Spanish "Dios", Greek Theos, German "Gott", English "God", Assyrian "Eleah," Eastern Syriac "Alaha", Western Syriac "Aloho", Arabic "Allah", Chaldaic "Eilah", Malay "Alla", --
I'm not trying to wear you out with this pedantry, I'm just saying that most language groups use Bibles which translate God using with the word they used previously (as pre-Christians, pagans, if you want to put it that way) to identify their Supreme God. It was only further explication that helped them distinguish between the character of "Elohim" and that of "Aloho."
So the first and most decisive cultural accommodation is language. it always needs to be purified from its previous association with polytheism, or cannibalism, or astrology, or sacred oaks, or whatever, and it always needs to be further explained in the light of what we know by Divine Revelation.
All other cultural accommodations follow the same pattern.
Not only is there nothing wrong with this, it's both positive and inevitable. People do not listen to things that are culturally incomprehensible.
Your “incorporates pagan elements” charge is not well defined. If by “pagan elements” you mean “elements of human culture not Christian in origin,” a reasonable response would be “of course we incorporate pagan elements, those which are not contrary to the Gospel.” This means, non-Christian customs which,purified of error are rendered harmonious with faith in Jesus Christ.
Within the world of classical antiquity, Christian poets used the existing traditions of Greek and Latin poetry. For instance. Paul quotes the pagan poets Aratus and Epimenides in Acts 17:28: “For in him we live, and move, and have our being: as certain also of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also his offspring.’”
So St.Paul actually incorporated pagan poetry into the New Testament.
The hymnodist Venantius Fortunatus wrote poems that are still used in the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church, such as the Vexilla Regis (”The Royal Standard”) and Pange, lingua, gloriosi proelium certaminis (”Sing, O my tongue, of the glorious struggle”). These hymns are based on the rhythmic marching songs of Roman armies.
You can see that it’s not enough to say someone “incorporates pagan elements.” You have to examine the matter more closely, to see if the “element” is harmonious with the deposit of Faith which comes to us from the Apostles.
An example might be holding weddings in church. Do you think church weddings are objectionable? I don’t suppose you do. Yet this is a custom not described in the Bible -— not anywhere, not once! -— not described and not prescribed. But we do it because it is a custom which is congruent with the doctrines of the faith. A church wedding fits in well with the Sacrament of Matrimony.
“This has been addressed.”
It sure has.
“I asked a question.”
What you wrote was, “You will see you fell for my wording so I could find out what the video was about. It worked quite well!”
“Questions do not come under the heading “true” or “untrue””
Everything does. That’s why writing so that “you fell for my wording” is not right.
“But yes it is true, I asked a question.”
Keep telling yourself that’s all it was.
“Seemed logical as South Park just seems to scream from some of your posts.”
And since you wrote, “You will see you fell for my wording,” what does that scream for?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.